Following a Michigan Court of Appeals ruling, the marijuana charges filed against seven people connected to a former Ferndale marijuana dispensary will be reinstated.

The charges against Barbara Johnson, Anthony Agro, Ryan Fleissner, Barbara Agro, Ryan Richmond, Matthew Curtis and Nicholas Agro will be reinstated, and further proceedings will occur, according to the Court of Appeals ruling, which was issued on Tuesday, Sept. 10.

Multiple charges were filed against the seven defendants following the August 2010 raid of Clinical Relief, a marijuana dispensary in Ferndale.

"It is very clear to (the Court of Appeals), it is very clear to us and it should have been very clear to everybody that dispensaries are not permitted under the (Michigan Medical Marihuana) Act (MMMA)," Oakland County Prosecutor Jessica Cooper said.

"This was rather pro forma, I thought. It's published and it's very clear, clear language. There's nothing that's ambiguous.

"If you open up that statute and you read it, it's very clear. They're saying, 'We do recognize there may be a medical situation, and here's how you qualify, and here's the number of plants you have, and here's the number of caregivers.' If you read it, it's very clear. There's no provision for hand-to-hand sales and no provision for dispensaries."

Stuart Friedman, one of the attorneys representing the defendants, said he was "deeply disappointed" in the ruling.

"I believe that the decision is wrong in a number of respects and ignores the intention of the drafters of Michigan's medical marijuana law by holding that the provisions of the Public Health Code must be strictly construed," Friedman stated in a press release.

"In doing so, the court has by definition weighted Public Health Code over the medical marijuana initiative passed by the voters."

Friedman said the passing of the Michigan Medical Marihuana Act "was meant to create a sea change." "By applying the rule of liberal construction in the Public Health Code in the manner that the Court of Appeals did, I believe they frustrated the intention of the drafters of the law," he said.

In the appeal, prosecutors argued that the trial court "erroneously dismissed the charges against all seven defendants without requiring defendants to first demonstrate that they were entitled to the protections afforded under the MMMA," the Court of Appeals ruling states.

"We agree."

The defendants argued that their interpretation of the law was reasonable, thanks in part to the "ambiguous nature of the MMMA."

"The defendants have never explained which particular provisions of the MMMA allegedly gave rise to this 'good faith belief,'" the Court of Appeals ruling states.

"That is, what particular provisions of the MMMA purportedly led them to believe that they could operate a for-profit marijuana dispensary?"

The Court of Appeals also agreed with prosecutors that the "trial court erroneously held that the rule of lenity applied under the circumstances of this case."

The rule of lenity "provides that courts should mitigate punishment when the punishment in a criminal statute is unclear," the ruling states.

"It appears from defendants' motion to dismiss, as well as their brief on appeal, that they are arguing they did not know and could not know that marijuana dispensaries were not legal under the MMMA," the ruling states. "However, even if we considered defendants' arguments, defendants have failed to identify any allegedly ambiguous provision of the MMMA that led them to their mistaken belief that marijuana dispensaries were, in fact, legal. The MMMA did not, and still does not, include any provision which states that marijuana dispensaries are or were legal business entities."

The Court of Appeals also agreed with a related argument by prosecutors, stating that the trial court "erred by failing to give retroactive effect" to a previous Court of Appeals decision, which ruled that the defendants in that case had "no authority under the MMMA to operate a marijuana dispensary that actively engages in and carries out patient-to-patient sales of marijuana."

The Court of Appeals ruled that the retroactive application of that decision to the Clinical Relief case would not present a due process concern, nor would it criminalize previously innocent conduct.

"This is the position this office has taken from the very beginning," Cooper said.

"The Court of Appeals agreed."

The case is being handled by Oakland County Circuit Judge Daniel P. O'Brien. As of Wednesday afternoon, a new court date had not yet been set.

The defendants still have the option of appealing the Court of Appeals ruling by taking the case to the Michigan Supreme Court. Friedman said it is his opinion that the appeal will continue, but he said "further appellate strategy is not carved in granite," adding that the decision about filing a motion for rehearing or a Supreme Court appeal has not been made.

"Based on the court's statements that the rule of lenity doesn't apply to this poorly constructed stature, I really have no choice but to continue the appellate fight at this point," Friedman said.

"I believe that the critical flaw in the Court of Appeals' decision below was that it ignored the numerous statements about how poorly drafted the statute was, and placed the needs of law enforcement in front of the rights of the accused."